Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-04-08
The True Doctrine.

Day state CLUB, IN Boston, a few even
ings ago, uttered the following sound
political precepts:
The organization to which we are
attached will promote the national in
terests and the welfare of the people.
This is the only true basis for politi-
cal party, and any party organized
upon foundation less broad, less pa
triotic than this will soon degenerate
into a mere faction and cease to COM
mand the respect of intelligent citi-
zens.
Every effort to make single inter-
est or single class, to the exclusion OF
all others, basis for political organ
ization will fail and ought to fail.
From the formation of your Consti-
tuition down to the present time. the
point of irreconcilable differences be-
tween the Democratic party and all
its adversaries has been as to the ma
ture and extent of the Federal powers.
The principle of local self-govern-
ment is the vital part of Democracy.
An amendment to the Constitution de-
clares that powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are re-
served to the States respectively, or to
the people. No power can be justly
claimed unless it is granted in express
terms, or by necessary implication.
If no such grant of power can be
found, and if its exercise by State is
not prohibited, it belongs to that State
and her people; and thus, while the
doctrine of State Rights is defended in
that article, yet it does not sanction
secession or notification, but it in
structs the several States and their
people as to the bounds of all legisla-
tive, executive and judicial power not
delegated to the United States by a
fair and reasonable construction of the
Constitution.
By this Constitutional doctrine of
States rights the Democratic party Of
this country stands to-day as it always
has stood, and as, trust, it will stand
forever hereafter.
Twenty-Five years ago the tendency
was to carry this doctrine to a danger
Gus extreme, but since that time a
dangerous extreme has been threatened
from quite an opposite direction.
Great and powerful interests, too
powerful almost to be successfully re-
sisted, are constantly pressing against
the barriers of Constitutional power,
demanding an extension Of the Fed
eral power to degree never contem-
plated by the most extreme Federalist
in early days.
It is quite common now to hear
gentlemen-able gentlemen in Con-
gress and elsewhere-contendi for
the exercise of power by the General
Government over particular subjects,
simply because the States refuse to do
SO, or because it is thought that State
legislation might not be entirely ef-
fective. The argument is that what
ever States will not do and cannot do,
must be done by Congress or by the
Departments of the General Govern
ments, and that independently of
these specific grants of power it is the
right and duty of the Government to
exercise general supervision and
control over all concerns of the peo-
pie. Mr.. President, this is not Demo-
cratic doctrine as I understand it, and
it never was. 1t means centralization
first and inevitable dissolution after
ward.
No part of the Union is so vitality in
terested in the preservation and main
tenance intact of this local authority
as the New England States, and in no
part of the Union have the beneficial
results attending the maintenance of
this doctrine been so thoroughly de-
monstrated.
Your town meeting is the most
Democratic institution in the country.
It has never endangered the liberties
of a single human being.
Town, State and the General Gov
ernment all have their appropriate
powers and duties, and SO long as
these are respected and maintained,
neither encroaching on the domain of
the other, there will be harmony and
unity in our complex system of Gov
ernment.